SB-95 Custom Colours?

I've always wanted a Yeti, and for some reason, the turquoise has always attracted me too. Anyway, I'm finally going to pull the trigger next year and get a SB-95, but I'm not terribly keen on the Silver or Black options. I have heard rumours that if you ask Yeti nicely enough, they will come to the party and give you a custom paint job for the right price. Has anyone else heard these rumours and more importantly, do you have any leads on how I can go about trying to get a Turquoise SB-95?

Man, I wish we could offer a service like this, but the truth is that it would be incredibly expensive. Basically, you would have to pay for someone's time to personally babysit your frame all the way through the manufacturing process, not to mention the time associated with having the factory reconfigure all of their painting setups just for your particular frame.

In the end, it would likely be much much cheaper to just have the frame sandblasted and repainted on your own, and this is why we don't offer any custom paint options. In the old days when we were doing tiny production runs in house, this sort of thing was probably likely. Nowadays, with us shipping thousands of frames all over the world, it's just not feasible.

This.. buying a non team colored Yeti is like buying a non red ferarri, It happens but It doesnt make sense.. I want people in the bike world to know my brand loyalty the second they see me flying around a corner without having to see the name on the downtube..

We chose the 120 because a ton of market research indicated that a 120 would be better received. I don't have the exact geo numbers for a 140, but figure it will be about a degree slacker and roughly half an inch higher at the BB.

We chose the 120 because a ton of market research indicated that a 120 would be better received. I don't have the exact geo numbers for a 140, but figure it will be about a degree slacker and roughly half an inch higher at the BB.

I'd be curious to know how the bike rides at 140mm. Would love to see them in Yeti Turquoise! Thanks for all the info.

We chose the 120 because a ton of market research indicated that a 120 would be better received. I don't have the exact geo numbers for a 140, but figure it will be about a degree slacker and roughly half an inch higher at the BB.

I appreciate the reply and the information regarding the 140 conversion. I was planning on getting one of these to supplement my Big Top and Uzzi but unfortunatley, the higher BB with the 140mm setting might push me to the Big S's 29er evo. I can't believe I just wrote this but the geo on that bike is spot on for a trail 29er - low and slack with a 140mm fork. I will definitely test ride a sb95 alongside the SJ evo though before making that difficult decision as I would love to support Yeti over the dark side. Cheers!

When we design a bike, we make it very specific to the application. Because of that, we didn't just stretch out the SB66 design to accommodate the 29" wheel; we completely redesigned the frame and kinematics to give a ride that would work well for the shorter travel and intended purpose of the bike. Among many other things, this required relocating the position of the Switch mechanism, which also caused the seat tube to move forward relative to the position of the SB66 ST.

Because the ST is offset forward relative to the BB, you can run your seat further back on the rails to get a longer cockpit, or you can run a layback post. This will get you closer (or to the same location) to when the ST is centered at the BB (HT-BB values, 26” TT for XL). With a layback post or seat further back on the rails you get the extra TT length, but you are not positioned way over your back wheel like you would be if the ST was at the BB.

Another possible solution to this conundrum would be to keep the same ST offset and just lengthen your TT length, but then your front center gets huge. It’s a balance of ST/Tire clearance (CS length, total travel), front center length, and TT length. With 5” of travel and 29" wheels there has to be a compromise somewhere. In our case we did not want crazy long CS lengths and less travel like some other designers are utilizing; we think those bikes ride like crap. Another solution could have been to add a bend in our ST to make it slacker, but then you run into issues with seat post insertion depth. In the end, we think our design solves the most problems and makes for the best bike.

I'd love to get more into detail on all of this, but I think you guys get the gist, and honestly, replying to message board posts is a tiny part of my job. I'll leave you all to discuss the rest of this stuff amongst yourselves, and I'll get back to trying to sell bikes to Timbuktu.

Custom powder coat colors were available back when I bought my Pro FRO in 92. IIRC,for $150 up charge, and you could choose main color, dart color, and the color of the line separating the two. Could also get custom geometry for a bigger up charge.

John, thanks for explaining the geometry... I tend to look at effective top tube length as the end-all-be-all in terms of whether a bike can fit me, but that's probably not the way to go about it, as there's a lot more going on than most people (myself included) realize... hoping to hop on a '95 in 2012 !

Curious if the geo changed from the demo bikes we have all been reading and getting excited about. The numbers are different to what was published earlier (referred to in a link above which shows the bike in white/turquoise), though I am sure that was not official. i.e. Are these numbers the same as those used on the demo bikes at Interbike, and the subsequent test rides we have all been reading? I kept hearing people talk about the long top tube combined with shorter stems. Even has become a bit of a debate in certain circles. These new numbers look more like Pivot/Santa Cruz/Ibis type numbers. The earlier numbers on the M frame was an ETT of 24.1 which is a full size difference now.

Can you tell us how much the centerline of the seat tube deviates from the centerline of the BB? This might help to know how much of a layback to consider.

Hard to plunk down cash in advance if the geo has changed from reviews to production. Many shops are pushing the pre-order due to availability, and no subsequent reviews are out that I can find.

Thanks for posting this stuff up here by the way. I think you know as well as a lot of us here that this format is a big part of the pre-sell. Maybe not quite as big as the Timbuktu market though.

Curious if the geo changed from the demo bikes we have all been reading and getting excited about. The numbers are different to what was published earlier (referred to in a link above which shows the bike in white/turquoise), though I am sure that was not official. i.e. Are these numbers the same as those used on the demo bikes at Interbike, and the subsequent test rides we have all been reading? I kept hearing people talk about the long top tube combined with shorter stems. Even has become a bit of a debate in certain circles. These new numbers look more like Pivot/Santa Cruz/Ibis type numbers. The earlier numbers on the M frame was an ETT of 24.1 which is a full size difference now.

Can you tell us how much the centerline of the seat tube deviates from the centerline of the BB? This might help to know how much of a layback to consider.

Hard to plunk down cash in advance if the geo has changed from reviews to production. Many shops are pushing the pre-order due to availability, and no subsequent reviews are out that I can find.

Thanks for posting this stuff up here by the way. I think you know as well as a lot of us here that this format is a big part of the pre-sell. Maybe not quite as big as the Timbuktu market though.

RE: Geometry - the geo on the demos has not changed for production.
RE: Relative length of the TT. The 66 and the 95 were designed for completely different uses. As I mentioned earlier, all of our bikes are designed for certain types of riding; accordingly, we don't just stretch a 66 out to make a 95. We start from scratch and design geo that makes sense for the purpose intended.
RE: centerline deviation, I'll have to talk to the bike's main designer (who's in Asia for the next 3 weeks) and get back to you.

Hey John, I think people are confused because most have been working off the geo chart that EGF posted above. 26" seems about right for an XL 29er, which should cover the taller riders out there who really notice the difference in fit. 25" is pretty darn short and there are no layback dropper posts out there so that 'fix' is off the table. Unless you have a 140mm stem laying around. Personally, at 6'6" I was hoping for a slack bike with a long top tub so I could use a short stem and wide bars. Oh well, looks like the SB95 is off my wish list . . .

Production '95s are not out AFAIK, but nobody said that there were no black ones in the demo/whatever fleet ... there may not be and I'd not be surprised if they're all silver but as I don't have access to any I can't say, so I asked.

Sometime this spring I'm sure we'll see some great pixels. I doubt mine will come from the first batch, but one can hope.

We chose the 120 because a ton of market research indicated that a 120 would be better received. I don't have the exact geo numbers for a 140, but figure it will be about a degree slacker and roughly half an inch higher at the BB.

John P.

Sorry to reanimate an old thread but... I have not been able to find the specifics of this conversion on Fox's website. I did find something similar that talks about converting a 32 Float using spacers.

Not able to link but here is the website :
// service dot foxracingshox dot com/consumers/Content/Service/QuickTech/FFloatAirSpgTravelAdj dot htm

Does this work the same on the 34's or is there something different that needs to be done? Thanks.

I'd guess the process is identical to changing/removing spacers on a 32. Release air pressure, screw off top cap, loosen shaft at bottom, pop up using a dowel and let oil drain out of the bottom, drain oil from top, pop up shaft, remove spacer, push shaft back in, replace oil in top and bottom, etc. Grossly oversimplified. I had never done this and converted my f29 from 80 (sheesh!) to 100 mm and it was easy.

We chose the 120 because a ton of market research indicated that a 120 would be better received. I don't have the exact geo numbers for a 140, but figure it will be about a degree slacker and roughly half an inch higher at the BB.

Originally Posted by hjulier

I'd guess the process is identical to changing/removing spacers on a 32. Release air pressure, screw off top cap, loosen shaft at bottom, pop up using a dowel and let oil drain out of the bottom, drain oil from top, pop up shaft, remove spacer, push shaft back in, replace oil in top and bottom, etc. Grossly oversimplified. I had never done this and converted my f29 from 80 (sheesh!) to 100 mm and it was easy.

Hjulier,

Thanks for the reply. I talked with John P. and he said the 2012s can be converted but they are changing the 2013s. I called my LBS and they were clueless. I sent an email to Fox asking how since I did not see it on their website. When I get a link on Fox's website, I will share. Thanks.

Thanks for the reply. I talked with John P. and he said the 2012s can be converted but they are changing the 2013s. I called my LBS and they were clueless. I sent an email to Fox asking how since I did not see it on their website. When I get a link on Fox's website, I will share. Thanks.

Interesting. I still don't see why the 2013 CTD Float stuff can't be converted just as easily.

Interesting. I still don't see why the 2013 CTD Float stuff can't be converted just as easily.

Agree, have not heard what all the changes will be for 2013 for Fox. Will have to do some digging and come back with what I find. Still find it strange they do not call out 34 mm F29s being able to be converted on the Fox website.

only place I could find it was below. It only specifies 32 mm not 34 mm but I guess they did not feel like updating the material. If you have a link that specifically mentions the 34 please link it. Thanks.

Not able to link but here is the website :
// service dot foxracingshox dot com/consumers/Content/Service/QuickTech/FFloatAirSpgTravelAdj dot htm

only place I could find it was below. It only specifies 32 mm not 34 mm but I guess they did not feel like updating the material. If you have a link that specifically mentions the 34 please link it. Thanks.

Not able to link but here is the website :
// service dot foxracingshox dot com/consumers/Content/Service/QuickTech/FFloatAirSpgTravelAdj dot htm

You're correct, it's pretty dated. But I spoke with Fox about this issue and you can use the same spacers to lower the 34 and 36 Float respectively.

People have had no issues dropping the 34 Float. I see the same trend for 2013 CTD stuff.

Hey John, I think people are confused because most have been working off the geo chart that EGF posted above. 26" seems about right for an XL 29er, which should cover the taller riders out there who really notice the difference in fit. 25" is pretty darn short and there are no layback dropper posts out there so that 'fix' is off the table. Unless you have a 140mm stem laying around. Personally, at 6'6" I was hoping for a slack bike with a long top tub so I could use a short stem and wide bars. Oh well, looks like the SB95 is off my wish list . . .

I've decided to wait until September for the SC Tallboy LTc XXL. It seems SC had a lot of requests for this size and reacted to the demand, I'm surprised that same does not apply in the case of the SB95. Pity.